Wow. Seems likes the Democratic Governor's race has just heated up. It's as if folks overslept and just woke up this morning and said, hmmm.... the incumbent could lose this primary.

With Ted K reversing course and buying ad time, four of the last five BlueOregon articles being on this race, it's as if the Governor's campaign staff realized they're not cruising to victory, and even a close win will help the Republicans this fall.

Don't be fooled. I agree. Ted ran on protecting public employees pensions and that he would help seniors and the environment. He told people many things and people believed him enough to vote for him.

Then came the disappointment. For almost 4 years Ted turned on those many promises he made to get elected. “Integrity” is not the word that comes to mind as used by Commissioner Leonard.

On the environment he told us that he supported reserves in the Tillamook. When he was elected he sent his hit man Mr. Brown to tell us that the Governor does not support reserves. He said he was against M-37 (anti-land use measure) and then in the last legislative session he pushed changes for M-37 that would have allowed landowners to transfer their rights under M-37 to others making a bad situation worse. When it came to stopping toxic mixing zones he sighed and said we should do more so he did nothing. When seniors approached him on issues he shook their hands and said later.

Commissioner Leonard wrote: “He impressed me then, as he does today, as a caring and thoughtful fighter for working class Oregonians.” Consider Kulongoski’s accomplishments. On the OPB special, the Gov smiles while naming taking on Pensions and Workers Compensation as his top 2 wins. Well get a grip, progressive blue oregonians - this is an attack on working people! Plus Kulongoski made it worse by promising public employees that he would protect their pensions and then he took their money - used them to get elected - and then attacked them. That is the part that really sticks in my craw. I don't mind someone disagreeing with me but tell me the truth. Don't lie. On worker's comp reform, I was there. I remember what Ted said and what happened. Rates went down but worker's got screwed.

Some of you may say, "These issues needed to be addressed.” But you are falling for the Republican smoke screen and divide and conquer tactic that they have employed so we don't focus on problems like corporations paying their fair share of taxes and all of those tax credits such as the pollution control tax credits that they've gotten for years for just following the law. I wish I were paid to follow the law. It’s a billion dollar Republican trick and I’m not buying it.

I won't be fooled anymore. I'm voting for a Democrat - I'm voting for Jim Hill. A man of integrity who will stand up for working Oregonians and move this state forward.

We're all familiar with the phrase "nice guys finish last." Our current governor has allowed his opponents to define him. He's weakened his position by not promoting his accomplishments. He's seldom been willing to proclaim loudly his position on issues and fight openly - for all to see - in regard to progressive legislation and ideals. Conservatives see compromise as weakness. They simply don’t play well with others. As someone who's spent a lot of time at the capitol during sessions under both Gov. Kitzhaber and Gov. Kulongoski, there has appeared to be a void in leadership from the governor's office since '03.

The governor needs to go for the throat of his Republican opponent in the general election or he will lose. He could have decimated Mannix in '02 but chose to be a nice guy. Just days before Election Day – Halloween no less - a poll had the race too close to call. People need to know why they shouldn't vote for Saxton or (please say it isn't so) Mannix. Considering his 3 1/2 year void in self-promotion, going negative - like they will - is his only option if he wants to be re-elected.

Kari, I have disclosed numerous times that I now am being paid by the Hill campaign. I apologize that I didn't put the disclaimer on each post. But it's been noted many times. And yes, I agree that we are all in this together. We all want to see a better Oregon. But we need a wider range of view points. The Portland males seem to have taken over.

I encourage women to blog more. There appears to be a lack of a woman participating in Blue Oregon. I think we need more women expressing themselves.

Peace. Vote Jim Hill

I just saw Mari's comment on workers' compensation. The governor signed Senate Bill 311 which should reduce "well documented" independent medical examiner fraud. It passed unanimously in both chambers.

The governor did veto House Bill 2588 which would have eventually expanded the number of doctors able to treat injured workers by adding chiropractors as attending physicians. Currently, they have a 30 day limitation. The bill only provided a study, not to be funded by taxpayer dollars. In his veto, the governor wrote "Neither workers nor employers have said that the current limits cause problems." Yet in our support position paper - which I've been told he read - we clearly indicated that the injured were struggling to find doctors willing to take on workers' compensation claims. Other worker advocates confirmed what we were seeing. Workers have also complained to the state workers’ compensation division. To be blunt, the governor's use of those particular words was a slap in the face to this injured worker leader.

The governor also signed House Bill 2408 which nullified a major element within Senate Bill 757 (2003), legislation that had been negotiated for about two years prior to its passage.

Overall, I'd say the governor's record on workers' comp. is middle of the road. Unfortunately, that appears to be the situation on a lot of issues. I mainly wish he'd stop talking about how well-treated the injured are - we're not. Also keep in mind that super low workers' comp. insurance premiums, which he routinely mentions, translate to injured workers getting the shaft.

Kari,

I think your gist is that Kulongoski did win in '02 even though he (sort of) went negative in the last seven days. The difference this time around is that Kulongoski has a record as governor, is polling low, probably won't get an aggressive labor effort, and there's no Tom Cox taking most of his 4% from Mannix. Many believe that if Ben Westlund gets on the ballot, it'll favor the Republican. I also suspect turnout will be less than in '02 which favors the R's. Also, I've seen no substantial safeguards to prevent fraud. I expect we'll see, to a larger degree, a derivative of 2004's Sproul Company picking up voter registrations and not delivering the Democratic ones.

I just moved to Oregon from a "red state" and cannot believe what you people are doing!!!

You have an incumbent Democratic governor. A Democratic Senate. All you need is to maintain those seats and win the House. And you can push through most of the legislative agenda without too much interference (look at Washington DC right now). It doesn't matter too much who is governor as long as it is a Democrat since the when the House and Senate passes a bill, it will most likely get signed anyway.

Instead of focusing your energies on winning the House and consolidating your gains, you just want to implode and engage in internecine warfare, like this gubernatorial primary.

I don't honestly know who will win the primary but it saps resources for the real fight. Is there such a lack of strategic vision??? Maybe Oregon deserves the mess it is in.

Hey Oregondemsareidiots, As you're new to the state, I'll offer you a little history lesson on the benefits of "d"emocratic control of the Senate.

In 2003, Governor Kulongoski, in a less-than-elegant attempt to rebalance a timber-industry-heavy Board of Forestry (which he helped imbalance) nominated former US Congressman Les AuCoin to replace one of the many timber voices on the Board.

When the industry pushed back during the Senate confirmation process, several key Dems either waffled or indicated they were waffling. In the resultant back and forth, a key Dem Senator forwarded an "intemperate" AuCoin email to her colleagues, Kulongoski withdrew his support and AuCoin was forced to withdraw his nomination (see http://159.54.226.83/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050312/STATE/503120310/1042).

Winning the House won't change that dynamic in the Senate or the Governor's office.

Putting someone who cares about progressive issues enough to fight for them, will.

Hubris, from the Greek, means wanton arrogance, insolent disregard.

Duke had only part of the story of the AuCoin nomination. A wise nominee would have visited each Senator and ASKED for their vote, rather than trying to demand a vote as AuCoin did (and he couldn't even check the spelling of the names of state senators??). Early on (a year ago, or more) one Dem. Senator had informed the caucus office "sorry, I can't be one of the votes to confirm". That left AuCoin needing 16 of 17 votes, and the way he tried to force Senators to vote for him fits my definition of hubris.

For those who were happy with the result, the anti-AuCoin coalition was a sight to behold. If such a coalition is possible, this state is less polarized than some would have us believe.

The Sen. Republican leader sent out an email barely mentioning AuCoin and asking "what's wrong with Chris Heffernan who is on the Forestry Board now?". Valid question--too bad no one publicly tried to answer it. That there was a Republican slogan devised, "Heffernan--why settle for Les" was well within the bounds of civil behavior. Meanwhile, Les alienated some who had previously supported him, or admired his various columns. One House staffer who fits that category later said it was impressive how Ferrioli handled the situation by being positive rather than negative, "He gave Les AuCoin the attempt to slash and burn himself".

Les AuCoin lost the 1992 US Senate election after barely (recount result: 330 votes) winning the primary. He hadn't reached out to those who didn't vote for him in the primary (hint to those actively involved in this Gov. primary--if you DEMAND that the losing candidate's supporters give you their every spare minute with no questions asked, you may discover they all have more important things to do with their time; but if you reach out to them, answer questions, engage in dialogue then you may win them over).

On the other end of the spectrum from Ferrioli were those who knew that at some time in his life AuCoin had taken various positions on the environment (his 1992 opponent was an environmentalist who disliked what the folks on Capitol Hill were doing to old growth forests), and those who never forgave Les for his nasty primary campaign which he never saw fit to apologize for. There are some who say "negative campaigns work", but this was one of those cases where all was not forgotten and forgiven by the end of the election year.

One of those environmentalists had gotten so disgusted with Democrats that he'd become a Green Party member. I know, because he and I had been recount observers in 1992. http://www.counterpunch.org/donnelly03102005.html and http://www.counterpunch.org/donnelly03232005.html were written by him.

I first came to seriously question whether the Ted I voted for in 2002 was the guy in the Gov. office when there was no explanation of the AuCoin and later Neil Bryant nominations.

I've been told I should support Ted because the Republicans and Westlund are so awful. So, Ted is the Great and Powerful Oz who should never be questioned? Where is it written that any elected official is above questioning?

If Democrats are into an "obey or else--don't think for yourself" mode, that sounds like a great invitation to re-register NAV after the primary because Indepdendents DO have the right to think for themselves.

The above has been a warning to those who have gotten too wrapped up in the primary contest. Not everyone who votes for someone in the primary will necessarily vote the same way in the general. I'd like to see a spirited, substantial debate in the general election. If that is not possible in 2006, then why pay attention to politics?

Oregondemsareidiots: You are so totally correct. Thank you.

My friend has two pets... a huge mutt of a dog and a slow, lazy cat. His dog is fast, strong, agile, but dumb. The cat if fearless; she eats out of the dog's bowl whenever she pleases. I asked my friend: "That's a pretty bold cat -- doesn't she know that your dog can pretty much kick her ass?"

He said, "Yeah, but the dog doesn't know that."

(The Dems are the dogs.)

I just voted for JIM HILL..... And I feel ssssoooo much better about my choice... We all want to support Ted....but he has given us every reason not to. Not a hard worker, not supportive of education, not consistent with environmental issues, and not prepared to tackle the issues "everyday". I am really disappointed in Ted....plus I know that if he does win the primary, that Saxton will be Oregon's next Governor. When all of the dust settles, Saxton is the winner. Ted cannot stand up to his "do-nothing" four year record.... Anyway can beat Ted in November. If it was not for our friends in Multnomah County in 2002 Mannix would of been Governor......Ted does not have the support of Multnomah County this year, plus the union members are not supportive...Ted's base is gone. Come on Dems....Vote for Jim Hill and be guaranteed of the Democrats retaining the Governorship....

Robert -- you are so right. But what's your objective? Are you more interested in:

a) "tackling the issues", or b) making sure the Democrats retain the governorship.

Sure... we may be able to have both if Hill pulls it out. But we should all remember that party victories are not an end to themselves -- it's the policy that we're working for.

Hey LT, While you're absolutely correct that I provided a cursory review of the Board of Forestry nomination debacle, I think you're off-base in laying all of the blame on AuCoin.

The GOP and the industry pulled out all the stops to defeat the nomination and while AuCoin certainly didn't help his case with the email, it was the senators' waffling that provoked his "intemperance". AuCoin's intemperance pales in comparision to Ferrioli's vicious attacks on a former Congressman who, while in office, provided more logs for Ferrioli's supporters than anyone except perhaps Hatfield. It was AuCoin's change-of-perspective on forest management that motivated the industry's attack dogs.

Apparently elephants do forget.

Regrettably, Governor Kulongoski failed to line up the necessary votes and the Majority leader failed to enforce party discipline (see http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002254491_appointees27m.html).

Which brings me back to my original point that changing the House, while a GREAT idea, isn't, by itself, enough.

Let's not forget that Ted K. has a solid Demcoratic record in his 30 years in OR politics. WHen he got in the legislature, there were still a lot of conservative Democrats like Jason Boe. Ted stood out as a liberal leader. I had been undecided, but after the KGW debate I saw a leader of stature who deserves renomination for governor. Hill and Sorenson are fine people, and I really admire Sorenson for his stand on the corporate kicker and other issues, but their attacks on Ted have been coutnerproductive for the party. I'm also sick of the casino ads bashing our governor. Grande Ronde could care less about the Gorge. They just don't want a casino that would cut into their business at Spirit Mountain. One of my favorite Democrats died last year, 89 year old Kay Taylor of Albany/Corvallis, and her memorial service was at the Governor's mansion. Kay loved Ted Kulongoski and thought he was right up there with FDR/JFK/Wayne Morse, ect... in terms of his his Democratic credentials. I hear Kay telling me to vote for Ted, and I'm listening.

Randy:...to sully anyone who has ever lived within two zip codes of Neil Goldschmidt.

JK: Does that include gov's that have Goldschmidt's partner sit in on their daily staff meetings? The rest of us should be so luckey.

Thanks JK

Regrettably, Governor Kulongoski failed to line up the necessary votes and the Majority leader failed to enforce party discipline

Duke, I think you and I come from different perspectives. Thanks for the link, though. I sent the article to several friends incl. one who is running for state sen. with the message "makes sense to me".

I don't believe that if we elect Dem. Gov. and Senators we never expect to hear from them (asking our input, for instance) or that "party leadership" has infinite wisdom. I know that the Constitution begins "we the people" and never mentions party discipline. When was that changed?

And you have a different point of view of the whole situation. Apparently you think a Gov. nominee should be accepted without question (as long as the Gov. and Sen. majority are the same party). I don't. Isn't that why we had a ballot measure for Sen. confirmation in the first place?

This isn't just about AuCoin, I was also offended by the Neil Bryant nomination. And as much as I support the Dem. challenger to my state senator, I was proud of what she said about what was wrong with the Bryant stupid remark that ended his nomination.

This wasn't just about logs, it was about whether citizens have the right to ask the Gov. "Ted, how could you nominate a guy who was so nasty in that 1992 primary without explaining why the incumbent needed to be replaced?".

You see, some of us never forgave AuCoin his nasty 1992 primary, and the battle to defeat the 2005 nomination re-united some old friends from 1992. Were we supposed to forget all that because Ted is Gov., there is a Dem. Senate, so we are all supposed to be good little boys and girls and never question a Gov. appointment because when we voted for him we all swore an oath never to question any of his appointments? Not the way I remember it!

What I do remember is having a discussion with a long time lobbyist a little over a year ago---he'd also forgotten about "we the people" and thought that a Gov. nominee deserved unquestioning support. When I asked him if all who voted for Ted for Gov. signed a contract promising never to question his appointments, then he began to see there was another point of view.

My friend who was LA for a House Dem saw this the same way I did--that Ferrioli was a much more positive ("What's wrong with Chris Heffernan?" is a valid question, isn't it?)Republican than we had ever hoped to see. If you saw a different side of Ted F, it must have been in private if my friend and I (who thought we were watching closely) thought Ted handled the situation with a more deft touch than we have seen from Minnis, Scott, or most of the other House GOP leadership of this century.

For many months I had the text of Ferrioli's email on my computer, but apparently I saved it to a disk/ deleted it, whatever. He could be very harsh on some issues--just never saw that on the AuCoin nomination.

Perhaps the fact that I had more face to face conversations with Ted F. than Ted K in 2005 had some influence on my thinking. But then, conversation is a very low tech but powerful way to persuade people. Just because it is often neglected doesn't mean it doesn't work.

While I was searching my computer for that email, I found 2 Oregonian articles on the subject--no link available, but they do have the title, author, date so you could look up the whole thing if you wish.

Here are excerpts:

AuCoin says no to Board of Forestry The nomination fails amid a legislative rift reflecting Oregon's urban-rural divide Saturday, March 12, 2005 MICHELLE COLE SALEM -- Former U.S. Rep. Les AuCoin withdrew Friday as Gov. Ted Kulongoski's nominee to the Oregon Board of Forestry, leaving an angry rift between Senate Democrats and the governor, and a deeper divide between rural and urban Oregon.

Republicans, the timber industry, rural Democrats and some conservationists bitterly opposed AuCoin's nomination, a fact he acknowledged Friday in his withdrawal letter to the governor.

AuCoin also admitted his own "intemperate words" -- such as calling two senators liars in an e-mail -- contributed to the "vitriolic confirmation process."............

AuCoin flap shows crack in system Friday, March 18, 2005 JEFF MAPES SALEM -- Former Congressman Les AuCoin delivered a gift to his fellow Democrats in the Capitol when he wrote an incendiary e-mail that forced him to withdraw his nomination to the Oregon Board of Forestry..............

But AuCoin's nomination turned into such a fiasco for the Democrats that many were palpably relieved when he withdrew last Friday.

The truth is, AuCoin's e-mail gave the governor and Senate Democrats a graceful way out of a floor vote they were sure to lose.

Afterward, the best face that Senate Majority Kate Brown, D-Portland, could put on it was to say that Democrats were still figuring out how to operate in the majority. "It's fair to say there's a learning curve," she acknowledged. ................ Sen. Vicki Walker, D-Eugene, was an early opponent because of a sympathetic column AuCoin wrote about disgraced former Gov. Neil Goldschmidt. Sens. Floyd Prozanski of Eugene and Rick Metsger of Welches also were sounding early signs of concern.

Mari Anne Gest, a lobbyist for the Wild Salmon Center, tried to count to 16. "I didn't see 'em," she said.

What's worse is that the Democrats were slow to grasp what the warring outside interest groups knew from the start: AuCoin was a lightning rod.

As a congressman from 1975 to 1993, he won some environmental plaudits but also was instrumental in keeping a large timber harvest on federal lands. Out of office, he moved to Ashland and turned into a provocative newspaper and radio commentator who frequently denounced the timber industry.

AuCoin's commentaries made him more palatable to environmentalists. But it had the reverse effect in the timber and farm communities.

Senate Democratic leaders, who make a big deal about having members who represent urban, suburban and rural districts, didn't realize this at first. Instead, they jumped to support Kulongoski's nominee without waiting for senators to take some readings from the folks back home.

"This was a stupendous failure to communicate," said Sen. Betsy Johnson, D-Scappoose, who felt bad she agreed to support AuCoin without talking to farm and forest people in her district.

Kulongoski also failed to understand the political impact of replacing a well-liked tree farmer, Chris Heffernan, with AuCoin. Among the thousands of small woodlands owners, that was a huge slap.

The governor's people were left muttering about the power of the timber lobby, while Senate Democrats talked about reforming the confirmation process. One possible idea: devoting legislative staff to vetting nominees instead of relying on the interest groups.

This voter for one, is NOT fooled by the incumbent governor.

Had Ted a clue of how to be an effective leader, he might have grown a spine and stymied Minnis and her gang of extremists in the House during the last legislative session. Example: how the rightwing-nuts were allowed to shred SB 1000! I'm gay and I'm pissed at the Governor for that failure as well as many other grave errors, including stacking the forestry board with timber industry reps.

The point is, Ted has lost too much of the base who supported him in '02. Many of us will not rally around him in November. He's far too weakened by his own ineptitudes. I'm convinced he would not win against Saxton OR Mannix.

So let's give a true Progressive a chance by voting for Jim Hill. Think about it: He really can trounce any Repub in November by consolidating a wide coalition of:

-tax-fairness advocates -seniors for fair medicine pricing -enviros -educators -pro-choice supporters -affordable health care voters -organized labor -students who need a break on college tuition -independent-minded voters -FDR Dems -GLBT folks -alternative energy entrepreneurs -small business owners -Oregon economy boosters -sales tax opponents -others you will think of

Please, my fellow Oregon voters, support a candidate who's a sincere Progressive and who has a feisty yet gentlemanly style: Jim Hill.

Like apparently half of Oregon's Dems, I am sufficiently dissatisfied with Gov. K to cast a vote against him this spring. But I had to weigh up whether I should abandon the truly progressive stands of Pete Sorenson for the slightly better odds of the other challenger, Jim Hill (previous polls have shown Sorenson in single digits).

In the end, I came away uninspired with Hill. He got into this race late, never articulated much of an alternative to the Governor and also produced some of the worst campaign ads I have ever seen in this state (not the negative, third-party ads...just Hill's own...he's so wooden as to make Al Gore & John Kerry look like the Charisma Twins!).

Pete is a earnest man with a populist streak that was honed back in the '70s, working for the fiery Jim Weaver. He is the only one with the guts to talk constantly (and in some detail) about re-working Oregon's insanely low corporate tax structure...the root of so many of our problems. He has courageously backed campaign finance reform and got into the race early on (in Jan. 2005) to make the case against Gov. K.

In the end, I figured he had earned my vote, and I'm rooting for him to top my 14% showing in the 2004 primary. It would be a sign that progressives are a growing force in Oregon politics and that we cannot be ignored in the November general election...

I voted for Jim Hill because it is time to give an African-Heritage man a chance to run Oregon. He speaks for working people. Many of us feel that wealthy politicians either do not understand our issues or are too afraid to challenge corporate interests. But my union brothers and sisters and I can tell that Jim Hill will fight alongside us for all Oregonians. Vote for Jim Hill!

This post is my Letter-to-the-Editor which was printed Friday, May 12 in the Eugene Register-Guard newspaper, in support of JIM HILL for Governor:

Hill still an inspiring leader

The Register-Guard's 2002 May primary election endorsement of Jim Hill for the Democratic nomination for governor said: "One (candidate) shows promise of not only leading the state but inspiring it ... that's Jim Hill."

True! Hill is an inspiring leader now, just as in 2002.

The 2002 endorsement also noted, "His experience as treasurer leads Hill to focus more closely than other Democratic candidates on the condition of Oregon's economy." Hill continues to insist on economic stabilization. He would create a "rainy day" fund, which would serve the state's needs during economic downturns. Hill believes the economy underlies all!

How to raise revenue to solve the problems of a weakened education system, rising health care costs, and deteriorating environmental quality? Hill would insist on income tax fairness by ensuring that larger corporations pay more than 5 percent of annual tax revenues. The tax balance is frightfully cockeyed when individuals as a group pay vastly more than large companies.

The newspaper's 2002 endorsement asserted, "To Hill, Oregon represents an ideal, and governing - indeed citizenship - is a struggle to measure up ... but Hill hasn't lost sight of it." The endorsement concluded: "Democrats should nominate Jim Hill, a candidate who carries in his heart a notion of what Oregon ought to be."

Hill said recently, "My bottom line is people. We can move Oregon forward."

Excellence and creativity vs. disappointment and mediocrity?

Between now and Tuesday, it's your choice.

JAMES JACOBSON, Eugene

What follows is my letter to the editor which was posted in today's Register Guard. I was inspired to write it after reading the RG editorial reference to Ted practicing "the art of the possible":

Hill has courage

How magnanimous of The Register Guard to acknowledge that corporations bear a lighter share of Oregon's tax burden than in earlier decades (Register-Guard, April 29). What a pity the context was in its inside-the-box endorsement of Ted Kulongoski for the Democratic nomination for governor.

While gubernatorial candidate Jim Hill - the strongest contender - points out that better schools and health care could be funded by raising taxes on corporations, the Old Guard implies that candidates such as Hill are overlooking the near-impossibility of getting any kind of tax increase through the Republican-led House of Representatives.

Overlooking? No, Jim Hill has the courage to call our tax system what it is - hideously imbalanced - and to say that it ought to change. What apparently escapes the cautious imagination of the editors is the value of a strong leader who is willing to do more than merely practice the art of the possible.

The first step toward possible change to our skewed tax structure is to say loudly and clearly, as Hill does, that it ought to be adjusted for fairness. I call Hill's approach practicing the art of possibilities. Isn't it remarkable how adding a few letters to a phrase can suddenly imply hope? Imagine how checking a different box on your ballot could as well.

STAR HOLMBERG

Springfield

My vote goes to: PETE SORENSON.

You are either a progressive, or you are Repblican't-lite, period.

All that nonsense about voting for those with the best chance to win, for fear that doing otherwise will aid Republican'ts, is exactly what Republican'ts have used to brainwash folks like the commenter, who before making his comment, confessed to being newly from a Red state. It is that thinking that allows states to end up red. And I'd rather be dead than red. It's that type of over-analyzing that netted us the worst president in the history of the United States of America. According to that thought process there are no poor performing Democrats (see: Diane Linn). That theory says we suffer whatever we have to just to keep a seat Democratic in name. That is how we got this blue-red divide, and the wedge-issue mind-set that has this nation screwed, glued and tattoed at the moment.

If you are one voter and you have one vote to cast, do YOUR job and vote for the candidate which best serves your own personal interests. If you are a working-class American, and you vote smartly, for your own personal interests, the rest will take care of itself. You're a majority. It's basic arthimetic.

Concentrate your efforts on being as well informed as you can be, about the issues and the candidates, so that you can choose that candidate which best serves your own personal interests. It's fundamentals. It's blocking and tackling. If your degree is in Political Science, great. If you're a voter with one vote, focus on that one, and leave all the other nonesense to the Political Scientists. Do you really aspire to be a Karl Rove (does anyone)?

Does the personal interest bit sound selfish to you? Wrong. Have more faith in the electorate than that. There are simply more working-class Americans than there are any other group / class, but somehow too many of those people think that their over-analysis and strategizing about out-manuevering or out thinking or playing some sort of chess match to which only they know the rules, will somehow net the party a win. Screw political parties. We all talk about what low-lifes politicians are when we gather around the water cooler, and typically in a truly bipartisan chant. Vote for the politician who tells the lies that sound closest to what would be best for your own self-interest and everything else will take care of itself. It isn't the rocket science that "they" would have you believe.

It is precisely when an individual voter, with their single vote tries to do the job of a self-appointed campaign manager, or party chairperson / strategist (Monday morning QB) that they lose focus on their own responsibility to choose the candidate which best serves their own personal interests.

I'm going to vote for the person who at least SOUNDS and ACTS like their views are most closely aligned with those which best serve my own personal interests. Ted has had his shot, Jim Hill's TV Ads, as someone already commented, make the guy look stiffer than Al Gore ... and Jim didn't even invent the internet ;-) Jim Hill is a LAWYER and an MBA people! Ever hear any lawyer jokes? But, top that with an MBA ... George Bush is an MBA ... the degree is forever sullied. ;-) At least Pete Sorenson started his academic career in a Community College ... like a MAJORITY do. I have nothing in common with a lawyer ... and people tend to vote for those more like themselves for a reason. They should.

And, if my vote for Pete Sorenson somehow causes Kevin Mannix to become the next Govenor, it'll be time to move somewhere else anyway ... coz in any sane state Mannix should not be able to get elected dog catcher. In my humble opinion Keven Mannix has as much chance of being Oregon's next Govenor as a fart has in a wind storm. Mannix blows.

Sorenson has stuck to his guns on the disparity of corporate taxes. Pete is not my ideal, just the closest match. I don't agree with Pete's seeming refusal to consider a sales tax though, because I would be willing to TRADE state income tax for a Sales tax (and I've lived here 27 years, and before tha, I lived 26yrs in a state that had both). I was anti-sales tax for a few years sure, but we all grow-up and mature ... well not ALL coz Oregon STILL denies the inevitable sales tax.

I DO enjoy not having to pump my own gas, and I'm acclimated to the recycling, but Oregon's state income-tax is assinine. And, the kicker ... universal laughter outside Oregon. I write the state a check, a few months later they write me one back ... what the %$#* good does that do? And corporations make out like bandits. Worried they'll pack up and leave? Good [kidding, sort of] it'll cut down on the surplus population ... who knows, maybe homes would be affordable again.

<h2>Basics people. We gotta get back to 'em. Vote for the person who comes closest to meeting your personal expectations, and leave the political strategies to the politicos. If you cast your ballot for a particular candidate soley based upon your belief in their ability to win ... and your desire to be counted among the winning team, rather than based upon what is best for YOU, then I believe that you're part of the problem, not the solution.</h2>